Appeal No. 2005-1361
Application No. 09/798,287 7
pattern [answer, pages 21-23]. Appellants respond that the
recall data pattern of Dow does not represent status values
indicating the state of a component stored in a status register
[reply brief, pages 6-7].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 19
for the reasons argued by the examiner in the answer. Each of
appellants’ arguments with respect to these claims has been
considered above and decided adversely to appellants.
With respect to separately argued claims 4 and 20,
appellants argue that Dow fails to teach wherein the plurality of
status registers are associated with a plurality of components.
Appellants also repeat the arguments considered above with
respect to claim 1 [brief, page 8]. The examiner responds that
the claim recitation “associated with” is broad enough to be met
by the plural components of the system disclosed by Dow [answer,
page 23]. Appellants respond that the status registers of the
claimed invention should be interpreted in light of the
specification [reply brief, pages 7-8].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 20
for the reasons argued by the examiner in the answer and for the
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to separately argued claims 6 and 22,
appellants argue that Dow fails to teach where the plurality of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007